Well, as long as we’re speaking slowly.

Right-wing blogger Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels links to my Joe Biden post, and has a pretty typical response to my argument about anti-choicers and fertilized eggs. My argument is this: Anti-choicers claim that life begins at the moment of fertilization, and that a fertilized egg is “an individual human being” worthy of a full set of human rights, and that it is the moral equivalent of a born child. About half of fertilized eggs — “individual human beings,” supposedly — don’t implant. In other words, they die. And yet I’ve never met a single “pro-lifer,” or heard of a single pro-life organization, that tries to save these billions of lives. Here’s what Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels had to say:

You can always tell when the pro-abortion folks can’t argue because that’s when they bring out the, “Oh, yeah? What about all those non-implanted fertilized eggs, huh? Huh?” talking points.

So I’ll say this again really slowly for those in the back of the class.

Pro-lifers understand that fertilized eggs don’t implant for different and natural reasons. They don’t get all hysterical about your biology deciding it cannot implant such eggs because no one makes a conscious decision to kill anybody. There’s just a big difference between having your period every month and trotting down to Planned Parenthood for your bi-annual abortion. One involves a biological and unpreventable certainty and the other involves an intention to kill.

So I’ll say this again really slowly for those even further back in the classroom:

Intention to kill is hardly the only factor we use in determining whether loss of life is tragic and should be stymied. If there was a disease that was killing a full one-half of four-year-olds around the world, I have a feeling there would be at least one organization focused on curing it, or at least mitigating its effects. When it comes to valuing life, we don’t just accept anything short of murder as an acceptable loss. Cancer is natural. Dying after accidents that involve major trauma is natural. Dying because you’re unable to feed yourself is natural.

But we don’t look at people dying of those causes, shrug our shoulders and move on because, hey, no one is intentionally killing them.
So the intention argument fails on its face. If pro-lifers actually, genuinely believed that a fertilized egg was an individual human being that deserved every chance at life, just like a four-year-old child, then they would probably do something about the fact that more than half the people in the world are apparently dying before they’re even born — whether or not their deaths are natural.

I’m not arguing that no pro-lifer cares about fetal life. I think a whole lot of them do. What I am arguing is that most self-identified pro-lifers — who I separate out from mainstream pro-life organizations — realize that there’s a continuum here, and when pressed, will have to admit that the ideology and line-drawing around issues of pregnancy and abortion are messy and complex — that it really isn’t as simple as “life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is wrong.” The mainstream, politically powerful anti-choice organizations (and their partners in the Republican Party) rely on the absolutism of their claims in order to push their political agenda.

And yes, that agenda is about controlling women. If it’s really about “life,” how does one reconcile that view with the fact that when abortion is illegal, women die in huge numbers? If it’s really about ending abortion, how does one reconcile that with the fact that the countries with the lowest abortion rates in the world have all the trappings of a pro-choice utopia: Comprehensive sexual health education, affordable and accessible birth control, a culture that sees sex as a pleasure and a responsibility instead of a shameful thing or something that must be postponed until marriage, and yes, legal and accessible abortion? How does one reconcile that with the fact that pro-life groups and the Republican party adamantly oppose all of the measures that have been proven to most effectively decrease the abortion rate?

So what does a pro-life nation look like? Ceausescu’s Romania is a pretty good example. From Tony Judt’s description in Postwar (a recommended read if you have time):

In 1966, to increase the population — a traditional ‘Romanianist’ obsession — [Ceausescu] prohibited abortion for women under forty with fewer than four children (in 1986 the age barrier was raised to forty-five). In 1984 the minimum marriage age for women was reduced to fifteen. Compulsory monthly medical examinations for all women of childbearing age were introduced to prevent abortions, which were permitted, if at all, only in the presence of a Party representative. Doctors in districts with a declining birth rate had their salaries cut.

The population did not increase, but the death rate from abortions far exceeded that of any other European country: as the only available form of birth control, illegal abortions were widely performed, often under the most appalling and dangerous conditions. Over the ensuing twenty-three years the 1966 laws resulted in the death of at least ten thousand women. The real infant mortality rate was so high that after 1985 births were not officially recorded until a child had survived to its fourth week — the apotheosis of Communist control of knowledge. By the time Ceausescu was overthrown the death rate of new-born babies was twenty-five per thousand and there were upward of 100,000 institutionalized children.

Do I think that the Republican party and anti-choice organizations give one hoot about “life”? Nope. Not when their policies bring a whole lotta death. Do I think they give one hoot about decreasing the abortion rate? Nope. Not when they oppose policies which do just that.

40 Responses to Well, as long as we’re speaking slowly.

I think it’s important to keep bringing up the consequences of pro-life policies when talking to those who oppose abortion. That’s why I like the whol “how much time should she serve?” framework as well as bringing up the maternal and infant mortality rates in places such as Nicaragua, Nigeria or the bad old days in the USA.

“””No, they think the real agenda is controlling women and sex because telling them that you should control your own sex circumstances when you don’t want children is anti-woman. I mean, it must be anti-woman to point out that only women get pregnant, just like it would be anti-homeowner to point out that inviting a burglar into your home and showing him where the family jewels are might result in a burglary. Because the point wouldn’t be to show how one can prevent being a victim. It would have to be that you hate homeowners.”””

Again and again anti-choicers somehow assume that becuase a woman agrees to have sex she therefore agrees to pregnancy…it’s that “consequences” thing that she aptly and coyly highlights with her reference to “asking for it” in her burglar reference. Because we all know if a woman didn’t want to get pregnant she just wouldn’t have sex……

It’s all about anally constrictive moral constructs that they wish to foist upon all else. Teh Baybeez don’t equate to much – hence their overwhelming support for the BORN.

Don’t forget all the embryos made for invitro fertilization that are okay to be thrown away but not okay to use for stem cell research. Why whine about women who get pregnant on accident instead of companies that make fertilized eggs just to throw them away? Because they really do want to control women.

This is hardly the statement of a compassionate person who seeks to understand anything.

THIS KIND OF STATEMENT is why I dislike them so much; they are fucking FLIP about the whole process, all while accusing pro-choicers of taking abortion lightly. Trotting my ass. Fuck these people! We don’t owe them any explanations.

They don’t care about women OR “babies”–but only their own damn moral superiority.

I hope this doesn’t sidetrack the conversation, but since you cited Ceauşescu’s Romania as an example of a pro-life state, I thought I’d mention that the film 4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days really illustrates all of the points you just made. It follows 2 university students who try to arrange an illegal abortion and I think it does a beautiful job of making the human impact of a pro-life nation understandable. Debates about abortion so often devolve into formulaic abstractions, so I think it’s incredibly valuable to have resources that remind us all of what’s really at stake.

those interested in the romanian experience can also watch the documentary “children of the decree”. it’s like “4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days,” except it’s non-fiction and delves much deeper into the situation, with background info and lots of interviews. (a short intro here; gail kligman, who teaches at ucla and wrote the politics of duplicity: controlling reproduction in ceausescu’s romania was a consultant for the film)

There’s just a big difference between having your period every month and trotting down to Planned Parenthood for your bi-annual abortion.
This just says it all, doesn’t it? You don’t call it “having your period every month” if, according to your beliefs, a person’s death is involved. Wouldn’t it be considered miscarriage? And I love the abortion-party slut-shaming. The misogyny of the pro-life movement is what made me suspicious of the whole thing, stop ignoring inconsistencies in their beliefs (eg. “baby murder” is ok if you were raped?) and start doing my own research.

There’s just a big difference between having your period every month and trotting down to Planned Parenthood for your bi-annual abortion.

I can’t believe I’m the first to point this out: he’s actually right, there is a big difference.

One of those is a safe, legal medical procedure with very few side effects, physical or mental; one is a chronic problem that for a statistically significant number of women often involves crippling pain and/or clinical depression.

It’s blog posts like that moron’s that make me wonder whether pro-life guys actually know any women, or indeed anything at all about reproductive health beyond what James Dobson tells them every week.

Anti-choicers claim that life begins at the moment of fertilization, and that a fertilized egg is “an individual human being” worthy of a full set of human rights, and that it is the moral equivalent of a born child.
The only support for this position that I am aware of is religious belief. Laws based solely on religious belief are inherently unconstitutional, violating the first amendments protection of religious freedom by forcing everyone to adhere to the religious beliefs of the few. Why in this debate do I never see this point made? Am I missing something?

@Robert:
While I agree with your general conclusion, I think it’s a bit misguided to paint menstruation as a “chronic problem.” It’s undeniable that periods can be incredibly painful for some women (they certainly are for me), but nevertheless, I am always incredibly suspicious whenever anyone tries to problematize menstruation. It’s a natural process that is uncomfortable and/or painful for some women. Women and female-bodied individuals get enough messages from society that menstruation is a problem that needs to be taken care of–we don’t need to get the same message in a feminist forum.

“Anti-choicers claim that life begins at the moment of fertilization, and that a fertilized egg is “an individual human being” worthy of a full set of human rights, and that it is the moral equivalent of a born child…..

The only support for this position that I am aware of is religious belief”

Well actually I don’t consider it a religious belief. It is a fact that a new organism is created when the sperm and egg combine to form a blastocyst/zygote. The only difference between their views and those of choice is that they insist upon calling that multi-celled organism a person and would happily force all to view it as such. People for choice let the individual decide what it is residing in her womb; be it a baby, a parasite, a pumpkin or the future savior of mankind…individual mileage may vary. There is no biblical reference to blastocycts or zygotes as being PERSONS.

I see it as their attempt to make scientific facts morph into flowery, emotional mandates. The science does not support their views – so they must bend the science to accomodate their agenda.

The anti-homeowner analogy makes no frigging sense at all. The equivalent for the behavior they’re trying to enforce, would be to say that if you ever invite anyone into your house – ever – you’ve left yourself open to a burglary.

I can’t imagine anyone making that argument seriously on any subject other than women and sex.

There’s something I have been wondering about the “soul at concception” idea. Wouldn’t that mean that identical twins have only half a soul? After all, they seperated after conception. I guess that would also mean people with the rare disorder of chimerism (two embryos fuse during early stages creating one individual with two sets of dna) have two souls.

I think you nail it on the iussue of intent and the desire of some so-called pro-lifers (actually, most so-called “pro-lifers”) to focus more on the women who have abortions rather than on the tiny fertilized eggs. They know that arguing for personhood from the time of conception is a non-starter for most folks, and so they work to reframe the argument. It’s less about saving actual lives and more about using the power of the state to force women to make specific choices. The real offense of abortion is not the loss of “innocent life” but the horrible, in-excusable, tragic separating of sexual behavior from its reproductive purpose.

I have just read In The Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction by Gabor Maté, a most excellent work by a Canadian physician who works closely with addicts in Vancouver. He points out that the criminalization and punitive measures pushed by the US’s “War on Drugs” not only don’t help people with addictions but also increase misery and death in already vulnerable populations. The US(and our very own conservative gov’t) discourages harm reduction strategies such as supervised injection sites in favor of reducing the humanity of people addicted to harmful substances. He quotes a RCMP officer who called into a radio show discussing INSITE(our country’s first supervised injection site)who noted the reduced death rate by overdose when addicts use INSITE by saying death *should* be a risk to addicts, and saving their lives is a waste(I’m paraphrasing).

All this to say the parallel between criminalizing abortion and criminalizing addicts seems to come from the same place. “We don’t like it, so we will make it illegal and it will disappear”, without any comprehension or desire to understand why someone would do either as if it was this whimsical decision we made on a lark. To “[trot] down to Planned Parenthood for your bi-annual abortion” and if this choice kills us in a back alley abortion or an overdose well then, that was our ‘choice’. In choosing to do ‘illegal’ or ‘immoral’ things we lost our rights and homelessness, death, or a baby is our punishment.

Rather then focus on the conditions that lead to unintended pregnancies(or make them untenable) or drug use, lack of education, systematic discrimination, unemployment, poverty, abuse, etc; they would rather cast out these reminders of our societies’ failure to it’s citizens. Blame them, shame they and lock them away but don’t allow that there is anything we could have and can do to prevent, support, or deal compassionately with our fellow human beings.

**unintended pregnancies are not the same as drug use, but the attitude in dealing with such difficult situations seems to be very similar.

Do you know what abortion restrictions are in place in countries with the lowest abortion rates? They typically have a number of restrictions (like waiting periods or late-term restrictions) which you’d oppose. Let’s not act like countries like the Netherlands or Belgium have the exact policies NARAL would desire. A more pro-choice utopia would be a place like Britain and their abortion rates are hardly low.

What should prolifers do about embryos which fail to implant? How are we suppose to save embryos which we don’t even know exist? What are we supposed to do in certain situations where we don’t even know if fertilization has taken place and don’t know if there is something in that situation which will help/hurt the likelihood of implantation?

Why don’t you talk about a modern developed nation with laws restricting abortion? Like say, Poland or Ireland or Malta. Wouldn’t that comparison be more apt than Romania from decades ago?

The choice is:
LEGAL abortion or ILLEGAL abortion.
Do the anti-choicers think they can force women to continue pregnancy when they don’t want to? They should look into the mortality rates of eras gone by.
They should be made aware that there are too many women willing to teach methods for home abortions. There will be so many underground abortion clinics, the only difference will be that the clinics will go without govt. regulation, thereby endangering the lives of women. Women who are mothers already, students, daughters, sisters…women who are pregnant and do not wish to give birth, will endanger their lives and health rather than give birth when they choose not to. We always have the choice, we always did, we didn’t always have the legal choice of a regulated clinic.
I know there are many anti-choicers out there who think, “Great, let those bitches who don’t want to birth our babies suffer and die!”

The question for them is:
Do you care whether women have regulated care while under going this medical procedure? Or do you prefer we suffer? Is that the Christian thing to do? Ensure more suffering? I thought Christians left that up to God?

“Do I think that the Republican party and anti-choice organizations give one hoot about “life”? Nope. Not when their policies bring a whole lotta death.”

EXACTLY. great post!
a lot of them will not own up to it if you corner them on it but there is the nagging belief they don’t voice publicly that any woman who seeks out an illegal abortion deserves to die. obviously, her life is not as important as some precious fetus’ is.

also, anyone ever notice the correlation between so many ‘pro-lifers’ being also in favor of more lenient gun laws, war, and the death penalty?

i believe it was rush limbaugh who recently and happily summed up sarah palin as “jesus, guns, and babies.”
yup. i sure do think its healthy to put BABIES next to GUNS in any sentence.

“Do you know what abortion restrictions are in place in countries with the lowest abortion rates? They typically have a number of restrictions (like waiting periods or late-term restrictions)…A more pro-choice utopia would be a place like Britain and their abortion rates are hardly low. ”

Uh, Britain also has late-term restrictions and, I believe, the need to get two different doctors to sign off on the procedure.

In my not so humble opinion, a pro-choice utopia is one in which birth control and abortion are free and accessible to all. The more accessible birth control is, the lower the abortion rate. I’d think that’d make the “pro-life” crowd happy, but it doesn’t. They are pro-birth and nothing more.

And Canada has no federal laws regarding abortion. Period. Our rates of abortion have steadily dropped for the last 12 years (with a little blip in 2001). AFAIK, it’s not for lack of accessibility. However, sex ed has gotten a lot better in that time. Hmmmm!

What should prolifers do about embryos which fail to implant? How are we suppose to save embryos which we don’t even know exist? What are we supposed to do in certain situations where we don’t even know if fertilization has taken place and don’t know if there is something in that situation which will help/hurt the likelihood of implantation?

Is disturbing beyond belief. Do you really believe it’s your job to be that involved in someone else’s life and body? Are pro-lifers experts who can “save embryos?”

Preying Mantis,
Yes, it’s a pretty weak restriction which only requires a late-term abortion provider to know another doctor who’ll sign a form. Besides that abortion is legal up to 24 weeks and is paid for by the government. Restrictions in the countries Jill is referring to as pro-choice utopias have more restrictions.

I’m wondering what Jill thinks prolifers could do (if it was even possible – it’s not) to prevent embryo deaths caused by failed implantation. I’m trying to point out how ridiculous her argument since it’s quite obvious that prolifers can’t really do anything to prevent failed implantations.

“I’m wondering what Jill thinks prolifers could do (if it was even possible – it’s not) to prevent embryo deaths caused by failed implantation. I’m trying to point out how ridiculous her argument since it’s quite obvious that prolifers can’t really do anything to prevent failed implantations.”

Well, I happen to know that so-called “pro-lifers” are definitely trying to save those blastocysts and zygotes with their campaign to outlaw birth control…On June 7 this year they held rallies all over America stating that “The Pill Kills” They claimed that if breakthrough ovulation occurred and a woman was on the pill, they claimed the pill would make the womb inhospitable for implantation and that tiny blasto-zygo person would DIE. Their solution to end this slaughter of innocent blasto-zygoes? Outlaw the BCP. And yes, it is ridiculous…

But let’s be honest here…their campaign to ban the pill has nothing to do with blasto-zygo “people,” but rather with taking away contraception from women who they feel should be walking, unprotected, uteri instead.

What you really point out, IMO, is how invasive and dehumanizing the pro-life position can be and how your movement fails to answer its own questions. It’s not up to Jill to answer those–I think she does a good job in pointing out that your inability to answer them belies the true motives behind many pro-lifers’ stance and the lack of logic in that stance.

It would be really easy. Perform research to determine what causes implantation failure (I am sure some women, particularly those who have difficulty conceiving would be interested in participating). Come up with treatment courses to prevent implantation failure. Make those courses of treatment widely available, and fully funded.

Sorry to go off on a tangent… for pro-LIFERS it is so easy to speak about the ‘murhderrr’ of little persons inside women’s bodies, but the very same people support wars where ‘real’ babies, mothers, dads die. Aw, those unfortunate ones don’t live in the US of course, so why bother.

How did periods get involved in this discussion? Menstruation is the body discarding an unfertilized egg. To say this is a death is the same as saying that a man who masturbates is killing his sperm. The person who replied to your post mentioning periods does not understand what she is talking about, or she would not have mentioned periods. I think she misunderstood your point all together.
You make an excellent point. A fertilized egg is NOT the same as a baby. This is what makes the pro-life/pro-choice argument so complex. When does fetus become a human? The pro-life movement plays it safe by saying as soon as the egg is fertilized. But what’s more, they hold life above the quality of life. As you point out, by forcing a woman to have a baby she does not want they endanger the woman’s life as she may turn to illegal abortion. Even if she doesn’t do this they undoubtedly ruin her quality of life. If she turns to drugs or alcohol, while pregnant to console herself, they have just ruined the quality of life for two people. If she decides to keep the baby (as many mothers who are pregnant are pressured to do) she is likely to resent the baby and may neglect or abuse the baby. Not to mention she (and the baby) will most likely be forced into poverty.
So here is my question for pro-lifers… Are you really willing to take away the quality of life of one, most likely two, perhaps even three (if the father is pulled into the mix) people on the chance that maybe a zygote should be considered a human being?

“If pro-lifers actually, genuinely believed that a fertilized egg was an individual human being that deserved every chance at life, just like a four-year-old child, then they would probably do something about the fact that more than half the people in the world are apparently dying before they’re even born — whether or not their deaths are natural. ”

What can pro-lifers do? I agree the research etc would be a good idea, but it would be incredibly difficult and very difficult to test – just look at the scientific controversy over whether the Pill helps prevent the implantation of embryos as a seconday mechanism.

Christians believe that the world (because of the Fall) is sinful and corrupted. One way this manifests itself is in the tragic – yes, tragic – deaths of many unborn children. Tragedy will never be eiliminated in this broken world.

However I don’t think it’s hypocritical to find a 4-year old’s death more tragic than an embryo’s, even though they are both fully human, because it is likely that the born child had parents/friends etc who deeply cared for him/her, whereas most of the embryos will have no-one knowing that they even exist. The parents’ grief makes the whole process more tragic.

Oh dear lord. The point is not to point out whether or not the pro-lifers are doing anything to save the little zygotes; we all know they’re not, and we all know it would be dumb to do so, and that fact is implicit in the argument. The point is to show that there is, indeed, a moral line between a real baby and a zygote; this is the reason why it would be dumb. Way to miss said point, Jivin.

Realistically, unless there’s a significant reason to do so, doctors in the UK won’t agree to perfom an abortion after 20 weeks, because – they say – a woman could be wrong by up to 4 weeks about the date she got pregnant.

And while in principle all abortions that UK citizens/legal residents have are paid for by the NHS*, in practice, it’s a bit of a postcode lottery (less so than it used to be, though) where a woman may be able to get an abortion several weeks earlier if she goes to a private clinic than if she waits for an NHS appointment.

*The Republic of Ireland has many of its abortions performed in the UK at private clinics: the other country of choice for performing Irish abortions is the Netherlands.

The Netherlands achieved a low abortion and STI rate by ensuring not only that all teenagers have access to contraception (which the UK endeavors to do) but to ensure that, as far as as possible, kids learn at school that it’s normal to have sex, that they should have sex when they want to and with the people they want to have sex with – and they should always use contraception/have safe sex.

Unfortunately, that sensible message is anathema to pro-lifers – which pretty much proves that they’re indifferent to preventing abortions, if not actively opposed. Pro-lifers who pretend they want to prevent abortions, but actively oppose free provision of contraception to all and compulsory sex education in schools, are obvious hypocrites: they don’t want to prevent abortions, they just don’t want them to be safe and legal.

“And Canada has no federal laws regarding abortion. Period. Our rates of abortion have steadily dropped for the last 12 years (with a little blip in 2001). AFAIK, it’s not for lack of accessibility. However, sex ed has gotten a lot better in that time. Hmmmm!”

Also, many more insurers here are now covering birth control pills, nuvarings, etc. which they didn’t 10 years ago. Which for me is annoying, b/c now that I could easily afford prescriptions, I get them covered. Before I got into the federal gov’t I had to scrimp on everything else to get my pills. But anyway, not surprising.

It’s not super-uncommon for women to mistake a very early miscarriage for menstruation or for a fertilized egg that didn’t have a chance to implant due to the timing being off to be sloughed off with the uterine lining. So if a woman is sexually active with a fertile male, ovulating, and not using birth control, it’s kind of an open question as to whether or not she’s shedding something the anti-choicers would call a baby. It’s one of the things that came up with that abortion art project prank–there’s pretty much zero chance of knowing whether or not there’s a fertilized egg or a very early embryo in among the blood and tissue.

Yes, preying mantis is right. Here in Britain we have a restriction for abortions after 24 weeks, and two GPs need to sign for a woman to be allowed an abortion. It’s even more worrying that we just recently defeated an ammendment to push the limit back to 20 weeks (some MPs were pushing for something as radical as 12 fucking weeks!), despite the fact that there was no medical evidence or support from medical bodies backing reducing the time limit.

So I would really hesitate to call the UK a paragon of pro-choice virtue. Yes, abortions are legal (within a timeframe), but there are still meny systemic difficulties in place that limit who can access them. And it’s been reported that women in Britain are STILL being driven to seek illegal abortions.

So all is not good, and it’s a case of constant vigilance to try and keep these rights in place, and improve on them. Whilst there are still many people like the person featured in this post running around and trying to control women’s bodies, we can’t be complacent. To be honest, it looks fairly likely the Conservatives will win the next election, and since most of their MPs voted to reduce the abortion time limit, I really despair.

I probably should have been more careful with my language, and I apologize. I was generalizing from my wife’s experience (and mine as a the caregiver during those intervals), and overlooked the “problematizing” aspect you mentioned.

So let me try again: I’m struck by the irony in the post Jill criticized. Abortion and menstruation are indeed very, very different–but not for the reason the author cited, and not in a way that fits neatly into the (typical conservative) black/white, good/evil worldview.

I’m wondering what Jill thinks prolifers could do (if it was even possible – it’s not) to prevent embryo deaths caused by failed implantation. I’m trying to point out how ridiculous her argument since it’s quite obvious that prolifers can’t really do anything to prevent failed implantations.

There is, as several people have said, one obvious thing prolifers could do to reduce the failed implantation death rate: support birth control and comprehensive sex ed, unequivocally. If you really want to protect the lives of as many “unborn” as possible, you need all women who are not actively seeking to conceive to be on reliable birth control. More women using BC pills means fewer accidentally-fertilised eggs to fail to implant. They can’t die through natural causes OR be aborted if they’re never conceived.

And in all the years pro-life organizations have been fighting legalized abortion they haven’t made as serious an attempt to re-prioritize government funding into health research for these embryos. The leading causes of death are still listed as heart disease, cancer and stroke. If 50% of embryos fail to implant completely – that’s a massive number. Where is their attempt to re-prioritize NIH and other government funding to try and prevent these large numbers of embryo deaths? – especially when some of the other diseases have behavioral components yet these embryos are wholly ‘innocent’. Perhaps we should hear more pro-life sexually active women saying they’ve stopped exercising or drinking coffee due to its miscarriage affect on these early possible embryos. Or pro-lifers who are sexually active monitoring the womans cycle so they can refrain from having sex when it can lead to a conception late in her cycle – given they have chosen to create a situation where they put the embryo at higher risk of death as shown in this study…

A recent study showed that “Women who consumed 200 mg or more of caffeine per day (two or more cups of regular coffee or five 12-ounce cans of caffeinated soda) had twice the miscarriage risk as women who consumed no caffeine, said Li. Women who consumed less than 200 mg of caffeine daily had more than 40 percent increased risk of miscarriage.”

Once they have succeeded in banning birth control pills, the zygote-lovers will probably move on to banning women of childbearing age from drinking caffeine. Women with tubal ligations will be able to get a special “caffeine license” from their doctors.

Seriously, though, I don’t think even the most fervent pro-lifers treat miscarriages as the equivalent of deaths. Some churches offer the option of a memorial service after a woman miscarries, but it’s by no means expected (as a funeral would be after a death) or held in public with friends and relatives other than the parents (again, as it would be for a death).

What I don’t understand is what these people think will happen to society if they force so many women to bear children against their will. Could it be anything other than large numbers of abandoned, abused and unloved children growing up to take out their suffering on others?